Technology Needs to be Used

editorial:

The biometric time attendance units installed in government departments are not just gadgets acquired to patronise some supplier with some extra profits, these are tools which should be leveraged to deliver the work-culture improvement that government departments desperately require. Like with all tools, even this technology is a facilitator, which, if used to its potential, can keep public servants in office, but cannot, if left unmonitored, ensure any improvement in public service. One sees the latter happening in most government offices where these units sit in corners, the employees checking in their attendance, but no one leveraging the technological possibilities offered by this gadget to keep a watch on attendance. There are already comments on the superficiality of the initiative which has been around for a couple of years now. “It is too easy to fool- register in time in the morning, leave office to run personal errands and return at 4 p.m. and punch out”. Of course, if one sets out to circumvent the system, one can find the loopholes, but even the nature of hood-winking mentioned here is easily plugged should the right structure be put in place. This tool is still reasonably effective in ensuring better attendance, which is perhaps why there have also been instances of intentional damage so that the office returned to the easily manipulated manual attendance registers.

So, why are the machines streamlining neither attendance nor performance? The first hurdle comes in the form of a generational gap in which those calling the shots are not only not tech-savvy, but also subconsciously technology-resistant. The reason why e-Governance is still some distance away in the future is also why the biometric time attendance system is not as effective as it should be- the HoD involvement required is not forthcoming. With some intelligent introductory sessions, this challenge can be easily overcome. What will not be as easy to circumvent is the attitude which infects government offices. If there is a serious commitment to turnaround the work culture in government offices, this attendance system can be used effectively. It has perhaps not been used towards that end because the gadgets were delivered by way of notification and not consultation, which would have seen to it that the office heads understood why these were being installed, how they were to be managed and what was envisioned through it. Since ‘awareness’ appears to be low on the need and benefit of these devices, perhaps these aspects should be elaborated afresh for everyone’s benefit. Since substitute registration of attendance is not possible with this gadget, it already ensures that employees report to work. All that is required is for the office heads to use the devise as a “time attendance” device that it is to ensure that employees record time spent in office on the device and not use it just as a check in and check-out machine. A few surprise checks to compare data feed in the machine against actual attendance in office should take care of this. Then will have to come delegation of responsibilities and segregation of tasks. For this, there is no technology, save the logic gained from experience. Technology, by way of the biometric time attendance devices, can keep track of office attendance and if used properly, can keep them in office. Making them work and making them work well, that is a completely different challenge, but one which should be taken up if there is any earnestness in achieving the Missions spelled out the State Government.